This appeal is a Hail Mary attempt on the part of neighborhood opponents to resurrect arguments rejected by the lower court. It is their right; but that does mean continued litigation is the right thing to do.
There are 1,600 reasons why PTA leadership, the County Council, County Executive, and the Board or Education support reclaiming the site for school use once again. Unless the new school is open by August 2017, 1,600 children will be forced into intolerable overcrowding at Westland Middle School, compromising their education.
"Compromising their education?" Really? Since when has anyone in Montgomery County cared about that? Classroom trailers have been on the ground for over 25 years in Montgomery County and yet MCPS still claims they are #1! Apparently overcrowding has not harmed education in this county, right?
Why are ONLY these 1,600 children of concern? Seems a little self serving when there are over 10,000 children outside in classroom trailers for DECADES. Did your community fight for those children?
Meanwhile, there are OVER 70 unused SCHOOL buildings in Montgomery County that can be reclaimed for use as public schools! Why aren't these already paid for school buildings being reclaimed? Tax dollars were already used to build these schools, yet they sit unused by public schools. Just this week Superintendent Starr is announcing that an entire middle school building is NOT needed! Imagine that! How is it that there are all these unused public school buildings but the ONLY solution to overcrowding is to pay contractors $70 million+ to build a NEW school?
Whether or not there are unused buildings in another area is completely irrelevant to the need to add middle school capacity in BCC. Surely you are not asserting that kids in BCC can be bussed to an empty school in Poolesville? Your conspiracy issues aside, the simple fact is that BCC is both one of the most overcrowded clusters and the most land constrained of any in Montgomery County. The fact that other MCPS kids are in trailers does not solve the underlying question of what we are going to do about it. Stopping facilities construction and improvement is about the most illogical approach one could possibly think of. Don't worry about those other unused schools, population projections are only going in one direction. Of course, that might stop if you guys get your way and our schools continue to decline. Virgina is going a great job of construction (and building turf fields too - their sports don't stop for a week every time it rains)
Whether or not there are unused buildings...wow...so that's how you plan, with a dart board? Yea, great idea. Start with zero facts and no information. OK - time to post the list of MCPS closed school sites. This will go up as a separate blog post since so many are clueless about the many properties that exist that can be reclaimed for school use!
Illogical is not doing LONG range planning. Illogical is planning based on one's individual child.
What makes you think that the MCPS enrollment increase has anything to do with people moving into Montgomery County? What if is just current residents having babies? Again, you cite what Planning document???? Just a guess? Well, let's plan using guesses!
"Compromising their education?" Really? Since Rock Creek Hills Park fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the official middle school site evaluation criteria ( http://savekensingtonpark.blogspot.com/2011/10/yes-lets-stress-test.html ), building a school there would indeed "compromise their education."
"Reclaiming the site for school use once again?" Sorry, but you can't build a new school where an old school once was, because hundreds of senior citizens live there now! The Kensington Park Retirement Community, built with tax-exempt bonds, stands on much of the footprint of the former Kensington Junior High. (For aerial photographic proof, see http://savekensingtonpark.blogspot.com/2012/04/ignoring-facts-indifferent-to-elderly.html )
I would respectfully reply that each issue you mention was raised and responded to during the process. That some people wish to continue to raise them does not mean that they must continually be re-litatgated again, and again. Perhaps neighborhood opponents are planning a separate lawsuit on these matters, too?
Here's the Lyttonsville Civic Association on "the process:"
"… MCPS staff set inappropriate boundaries for discussion ... MCPS staff cut off discussion to insist that a vote be taken before the committee had finished considering all their options. Staff ... made procedural rulings that affected the ability of some representatives to speak freely. Some representatives voiced concerns that they were being led to a predetermined conclusion."
Are the Lyttonsville Civic Association "NIMBY opponents?" Even though they don't live near Rock Creek Hills Park?
What is typical, and revealing, about Anonymous 11:20 AM, is that those who advocate destroying the park seem incapable of doing so without making misleading statements about the site, and hyperbolic claims about our children's education.
And after all, if there's such a hurry to build a new school, then why choose a site whose legal availability was in question – especially when the Chair of the Planning Board had offered a much larger site?
Indeed, the educational needs of the children are at the heart of this matter. Your belittling of this concern is typical of NIMBY opponents who wish to wish to wrap themselves around "park protection" issues while downplaying overcrowding concerns.
OK, first, who isn’t NIMBY in this situation, and why is being a NIMBY so bad? I didn’t see other neighborhoods running to offer a solution here. Did surrounding neighbors offer up Norwood Park? No. Did surrounding neighbors offer up North Chevy Chase Park? No. Did surrounding neighbors offer up Lynbrook Park? No. No one offered up the park in their neighborhood because, for whatever reason, it was not in their interest to do so. They are not evil because there is nothing evil about acting in one’s own interest. We do it countless times each day.
Second, there are legitimate issues of dispute here, and whether these people are correct is immaterial. Unless they’re raising frivolous arguments, in which case, they’ll get bounced on their rear ends, they have a right to have their arguments heard, especially when complex matters, like the use of restricted funds, the effect of Council Resolutions, and the ability to transfer land, are involved. The court process just allows for the orderly resolution of the matter.
What is apparent is that some people want to cast this matter in moral terms: Good versus evil, NIMBY versus non-NIMBY, selfish versus selfless. That is unfortunate because, as human beings, we each have a perspective to share, and attempting to brand the other side as evil is nothing more than an effort to stifle the debate that is foundational to an open society.
What will be, will be, and if these people lose, the construction of the school will not be delayed one millisecond. If they win, however, then a violation of the law will have been averted.
Last Spring, a Board of Education member (who does not live in Rock Creek Hills - does that mean that Anonymous 12:46 PM cannot dismiss her as a NIMBY?) said that because Rock Creek Hills Park is so small, that if the second B-CC middle school is built there, then it would soon become necessary to build a *THIRD* B-CC middle school, on the site of the former Montgomery Hills Junior High (currently the Yeshiva and Torah School of Greater Washington)!
See http://savekensingtonpark.blogspot.com/2012/04/board-of-education-member-rock-creek.html
Those of us who were treated to the abuse of Mr. Robinson when he was on the Planning Board are enjoying this payback. Mr. Robinson would threaten members of the public, including following them after the public testimony to continue the threats.
Well, if the lawsuit is successful they will go with the "no build" alternative that certain County Council members, the Coalition and others seem to support. That would most logically result in the RCH area being redistricted out of BCC. My kids will miss their friends but frankly it seems like just desserts (property values drop etc.) for the only neighborhood unwilling to have a school while shoehorned into BCC. But unfortunately, that suit is a huge waste of everyone's money. Just read the pleadings. I have seen first year associates with a better grasp of jurisdiction and remedy. So, let's all start getting along because like it or not they are pushing dirt in 2015.
Here's the question - how is it the public school long term planning today is ONLY about the "feelings" of the current students? What happened to long term planning? Oh - we know what happened! The long term planning policy of the Board of Education was gutted during the Weast years, leaving us with the build for current children only plan that is costing taxpayers millions and millions in planning dollars and litigation. (See "let's build a school on land that MCPS doesn't own litigation/lawyer bonanza over at Farquhar MS")
If you care about property values you'd be paying a lot of attention to what goes on in the schools right now. Right now anecdotal evidence shows families are avoiding MCPS when moving to the area. They aren't getting the answers they want when they look to relocate.
And, as for pushing dirt...don't ever count on anything happening in the future with regard to MCPS construction, unless it is artificial turf. Artificial turf is a push from the Governor and that always goes in super fast.
I agree, given neighborhood opposition in RCH, imagine how messy it would get if the BOE tried to find some other public property in the cluster that is not subject to recall by the BOE. "No build" is the only option.
I also agree with yesterday's 11:20 AM comment. People have a right to appeal to the courts, but the exercise of that right does not mean it is the right thing to do. I do not see the high minded legal principal here. The lawsuit is based on the use of $172K in public funds used to develop the site. The disagreement involves whether the use of these funds encumbers the property. The plaintiffs feel they have found legal gold, while to me this de minimis amount is trivial on its face. All the more so when one considers that our children's education is at stake and that the site had long been held in reserve for possible school use once again. Remember as well that the RCH community supported the reclamation clause 20+ years ago so the site could become a park until it is needed again for a school. At this point critics like to point out that senior housing changed the site, but that is irrelevant to the lawsuit and was well discussed during the process (toward which school opponents also have infinite criticism). I sympathize completely with neighbors who favor a park over a school. Most RCH residents have only known the park, and who wouldn't want to keep the park as is? But agreements were made many years ago, and we must be able to make good on these promises.
Wow! Is the BOE’s counsel trolling here? Talk about prevarication!
You say de minimis; they say legal restrictions came with the use of funds. You say the community supported the reclamation clause to allow for a school; the record says they _used_ the school argument to defend maintaining _the whole_ site intact (and, by the way, they lost that argument when the Council and the Executive ordered dual use of the site). You say agreements were made years ago; they say, those agreements were illegal. You say “we must be able to make good on these promises;” they say you can’t promise to break the law.
Look, _BOTH SIDES_ need to recognize that the time for winning hearts and minds has passed. All this lobbying via postings just inflames and divides the community. The RCH people lost the political debate and took the matter to court, which was their right. The court will decide, and in due time, the matter will be over. You can whine about the process, but unless you can find a leader with a bad haircut and a Members Only jacket to lead a revolution, that’s the process we’re left with.
As for all this speculation about “no build” and redistricting, by what contortion of logic do people arrive at such conclusions? There was a runner-up site identified, along with several other sites, in the site selection process. The Planning Board also proposed an alternative site. If the RCH people win, there will be alternatives available. If they lose, tah-dah, the school is built.
You people need a hobby. Try couponing or something.
Lynnbrook School (owned and minimally used by MCPS) and Park were offered up as a logical compromise and alternative and centrally located to boot. They would also have offered and included right of way that would have made up for the very small amount of land that would have been needed to meet their 10.4 (or whatever it was) minimum to build school. But the community surrounding Lynnbrook became infuriated at the prospect fuming at the mere suggestion by Francois Carrier, and Chris Barclay then chair of the BOE declared that Ms. Carrier had incited a "hornets nest" with her proposal...So, no all things are not nor have ever been equal in nimbyland. Apparently, some people have a fundamental right to nimbyism, while others do not.
No, 10.4 acres does not meet the site requirements for a middle school! It's 20 acres that was the goal. 20 acres, like the Brickyard Middle School site.
No, it was not 20 acres. I was there and it was 10 point something that they considered to be minimal that they could go. That was from their architect's presentation. Lynnbrook was just a fraction off when you added the adjacent park into the deal.
Why?
ReplyDeleteFor at least ten good reasons!
See http://savekensingtonpark.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-top-ten-reasons-to-preserve-rock.html
This appeal is a Hail Mary attempt on the part of neighborhood opponents to resurrect arguments rejected by the lower court. It is their right; but that does mean continued litigation is the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThere are 1,600 reasons why PTA leadership, the County Council, County Executive, and the Board or Education support reclaiming the site for school use once again. Unless the new school is open by August 2017, 1,600 children will be forced into intolerable overcrowding at Westland Middle School, compromising their education.
"Compromising their education?" Really? Since when has anyone in Montgomery County cared about that? Classroom trailers have been on the ground for over 25 years in Montgomery County and yet MCPS still claims they are #1! Apparently overcrowding has not harmed education in this county, right?
ReplyDeleteWhy are ONLY these 1,600 children of concern? Seems a little self serving when there are over 10,000 children outside in classroom trailers for DECADES. Did your community fight for those children?
Meanwhile, there are OVER 70 unused SCHOOL buildings in Montgomery County that can be reclaimed for use as public schools! Why aren't these already paid for school buildings being reclaimed? Tax dollars were already used to build these schools, yet they sit unused by public schools. Just this week Superintendent Starr is announcing that an entire middle school building is NOT needed! Imagine that! How is it that there are all these unused public school buildings but the ONLY solution to overcrowding is to pay contractors $70 million+ to build a NEW school?
Odd...now whose best interest is at work here???
Whether or not there are unused buildings in another area is completely irrelevant to the need to add middle school capacity in BCC. Surely you are not asserting that kids in BCC can be bussed to an empty school in Poolesville? Your conspiracy issues aside, the simple fact is that BCC is both one of the most overcrowded clusters and the most land constrained of any in Montgomery County. The fact that other MCPS kids are in trailers does not solve the underlying question of what we are going to do about it. Stopping facilities construction and improvement is about the most illogical approach one could possibly think of. Don't worry about those other unused schools, population projections are only going in one direction. Of course, that might stop if you guys get your way and our schools continue to decline. Virgina is going a great job of construction (and building turf fields too - their sports don't stop for a week every time it rains)
DeleteWhether or not there are unused buildings...wow...so that's how you plan, with a dart board? Yea, great idea. Start with zero facts and no information. OK - time to post the list of MCPS closed school sites. This will go up as a separate blog post since so many are clueless about the many properties that exist that can be reclaimed for school use!
DeleteIllogical is not doing LONG range planning. Illogical is planning based on one's individual child.
What makes you think that the MCPS enrollment increase has anything to do with people moving into Montgomery County? What if is just current residents having babies? Again, you cite what Planning document???? Just a guess? Well, let's plan using guesses!
"Compromising their education?" Really? Since Rock Creek Hills Park fails to meet the overwhelming majority of the official middle school site evaluation criteria ( http://savekensingtonpark.blogspot.com/2011/10/yes-lets-stress-test.html ), building a school there would indeed "compromise their education."
ReplyDelete"Reclaiming the site for school use once again?" Sorry, but you can't build a new school where an old school once was, because hundreds of senior citizens live there now! The Kensington Park Retirement Community, built with tax-exempt bonds, stands on much of the footprint of the former Kensington Junior High. (For aerial photographic proof, see http://savekensingtonpark.blogspot.com/2012/04/ignoring-facts-indifferent-to-elderly.html )
I would respectfully reply that each issue you mention was raised and responded to during the process. That some people wish to continue to raise them does not mean that they must continually be re-litatgated again, and again. Perhaps neighborhood opponents are planning a separate lawsuit on these matters, too?
DeleteHere's the Lyttonsville Civic Association on "the process:"
Delete"… MCPS staff set inappropriate boundaries for discussion ... MCPS staff cut off discussion to insist that a vote be taken before the committee had finished considering all their options. Staff ... made procedural rulings that affected the ability of some representatives to speak freely. Some representatives voiced concerns that they were being led to a predetermined conclusion."
Are the Lyttonsville Civic Association "NIMBY opponents?" Even though they don't live near Rock Creek Hills Park?
I respectfully refer you back to the 12:19 PM comment.
DeleteWhat is typical, and revealing, about Anonymous 11:20 AM, is that those who advocate destroying the park seem incapable of doing so without making misleading statements about the site, and hyperbolic claims about our children's education.
ReplyDeleteAnd after all, if there's such a hurry to build a new school, then why choose a site whose legal availability was in question – especially when the Chair of the Planning Board had offered a much larger site?
Indeed, the educational needs of the children are at the heart of this matter. Your belittling of this concern is typical of NIMBY opponents who wish to wish to wrap themselves around "park protection" issues while downplaying overcrowding concerns.
DeleteOK, first, who isn’t NIMBY in this situation, and why is being a NIMBY so bad? I didn’t see other neighborhoods running to offer a solution here. Did surrounding neighbors offer up Norwood Park? No. Did surrounding neighbors offer up North Chevy Chase Park? No. Did surrounding neighbors offer up Lynbrook Park? No. No one offered up the park in their neighborhood because, for whatever reason, it was not in their interest to do so. They are not evil because there is nothing evil about acting in one’s own interest. We do it countless times each day.
DeleteSecond, there are legitimate issues of dispute here, and whether these people are correct is immaterial. Unless they’re raising frivolous arguments, in which case, they’ll get bounced on their rear ends, they have a right to have their arguments heard, especially when complex matters, like the use of restricted funds, the effect of Council Resolutions, and the ability to transfer land, are involved. The court process just allows for the orderly resolution of the matter.
What is apparent is that some people want to cast this matter in moral terms: Good versus evil, NIMBY versus non-NIMBY, selfish versus selfless. That is unfortunate because, as human beings, we each have a perspective to share, and attempting to brand the other side as evil is nothing more than an effort to stifle the debate that is foundational to an open society.
What will be, will be, and if these people lose, the construction of the school will not be delayed one millisecond. If they win, however, then a violation of the law will have been averted.
Last Spring, a Board of Education member (who does not live in Rock Creek Hills - does that mean that Anonymous 12:46 PM cannot dismiss her as a NIMBY?) said that because Rock Creek Hills Park is so small, that if the second B-CC middle school is built there, then it would soon become necessary to build a *THIRD* B-CC middle school, on the site of the former Montgomery Hills Junior High (currently the Yeshiva and Torah School of Greater Washington)!
ReplyDeleteSee http://savekensingtonpark.blogspot.com/2012/04/board-of-education-member-rock-creek.html
Those of us who were treated to the abuse of Mr. Robinson when he was on the Planning Board are enjoying this payback. Mr. Robinson would threaten members of the public, including following them after the public testimony to continue the threats.
ReplyDeleteWell, if the lawsuit is successful they will go with the "no build" alternative that certain County Council members, the Coalition and others seem to support. That would most logically result in the RCH area being redistricted out of BCC. My kids will miss their friends but frankly it seems like just desserts (property values drop etc.) for the only neighborhood unwilling to have a school while shoehorned into BCC. But unfortunately, that suit is a huge waste of everyone's money. Just read the pleadings. I have seen first year associates with a better grasp of jurisdiction and remedy. So, let's all start getting along because like it or not they are pushing dirt in 2015.
ReplyDeleteIs that the Downton Abby version?
DeleteHere's the question - how is it the public school long term planning today is ONLY about the "feelings" of the current students? What happened to long term planning? Oh - we know what happened! The long term planning policy of the Board of Education was gutted during the Weast years, leaving us with the build for current children only plan that is costing taxpayers millions and millions in planning dollars and litigation. (See "let's build a school on land that MCPS doesn't own litigation/lawyer bonanza over at Farquhar MS")
If you care about property values you'd be paying a lot of attention to what goes on in the schools right now. Right now anecdotal evidence shows families are avoiding MCPS when moving to the area. They aren't getting the answers they want when they look to relocate.
And, as for pushing dirt...don't ever count on anything happening in the future with regard to MCPS construction, unless it is artificial turf. Artificial turf is a push from the Governor and that always goes in super fast.
I agree, given neighborhood opposition in RCH, imagine how messy it would get if the BOE tried to find some other public property in the cluster that is not subject to recall by the BOE. "No build" is the only option.
DeleteI also agree with yesterday's 11:20 AM comment. People have a right to appeal to the courts, but the exercise of that right does not mean it is the right thing to do. I do not see the high minded legal principal here. The lawsuit is based on the use of $172K in public funds used to develop the site. The disagreement involves whether the use of these funds encumbers the property. The plaintiffs feel they have found legal gold, while to me this de minimis amount is trivial on its face. All the more so when one considers that our children's education is at stake and that the site had long been held in reserve for possible school use once again. Remember as well that the RCH community supported the reclamation clause 20+ years ago so the site could become a park until it is needed again for a school. At this point critics like to point out that senior housing changed the site, but that is irrelevant to the lawsuit and was well discussed during the process (toward which school opponents also have infinite criticism). I sympathize completely with neighbors who favor a park over a school. Most RCH residents have only known the park, and who wouldn't want to keep the park as is? But agreements were made many years ago, and we must be able to make good on these promises.
Wow! Is the BOE’s counsel trolling here? Talk about prevarication!
DeleteYou say de minimis; they say legal restrictions came with the use of funds. You say the community supported the reclamation clause to allow for a school; the record says they _used_ the school argument to defend maintaining _the whole_ site intact (and, by the way, they lost that argument when the Council and the Executive ordered dual use of the site). You say agreements were made years ago; they say, those agreements were illegal. You say “we must be able to make good on these promises;” they say you can’t promise to break the law.
Look, _BOTH SIDES_ need to recognize that the time for winning hearts and minds has passed. All this lobbying via postings just inflames and divides the community. The RCH people lost the political debate and took the matter to court, which was their right. The court will decide, and in due time, the matter will be over. You can whine about the process, but unless you can find a leader with a bad haircut and a Members Only jacket to lead a revolution, that’s the process we’re left with.
As for all this speculation about “no build” and redistricting, by what contortion of logic do people arrive at such conclusions? There was a runner-up site identified, along with several other sites, in the site selection process. The Planning Board also proposed an alternative site. If the RCH people win, there will be alternatives available. If they lose, tah-dah, the school is built.
You people need a hobby. Try couponing or something.
Lynnbrook School (owned and minimally used by MCPS) and Park were offered up as a logical compromise and alternative and centrally located to boot. They would also have offered and included right of way that would have made up for the very small amount of land that would have been needed to meet their 10.4 (or whatever it was) minimum to build school. But the community surrounding Lynnbrook became infuriated at the prospect fuming at the mere suggestion by Francois Carrier, and Chris Barclay then chair of the BOE declared that Ms. Carrier had incited a "hornets nest" with her proposal...So, no all things are not nor have ever been equal in nimbyland. Apparently, some people have a fundamental right to nimbyism, while others do not.
ReplyDeleteNo, 10.4 acres does not meet the site requirements for a middle school! It's 20 acres that was the goal. 20 acres, like the Brickyard Middle School site.
DeleteNo, it was not 20 acres. I was there and it was 10 point something that they considered to be minimal that they could go. That was from their architect's presentation. Lynnbrook was just a fraction off when you added the adjacent park into the deal.
Delete